Supreme Court: Strip Search of Girl Was Unconstitutional

I've been following the story of Savana Redding for a while now. When Savana was 13, she was strip searched at school on the false suspicion that she brought prescription-strength Ibuprofen pills to campus.

Well, today the Supreme Court handed down the ruling that it was unconstitutional for the school officials to conduct that nude strip search of Savana. "They asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said of the ordeal. "They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.”

To see what the court said in the 8-1 decision, read more.

The court ruled that there was no reason to suspect that Savana was such a danger to other students that she had to be strip searched, considering the school thought she only had prescription drugs equivalent to two Advil.

Despite ruling that the search was unconstitutional, the court said that Savana cannot sue the school officials because it would have been hard for them to know they were breaking the law.

Do you think the court made the right decision about saying the strip was illegal, or is it important that officials are able to implement a drug-free policy as they see necessary? Even if you think the strip was wrong, should Savana be able to sue?

If I had a 13 year old come home and say she was strip searched I would go ballistic. It was ridiculous and unwarranted. If I couldn't sue I would raise hell for quite a while. I'm glad they took this to court and made an issue of it. Schools can be so stupid. I'm more worried about the kids getting zapped by those tasers. I've read some horror stories about that too.

I agree the search was ridiculous but I do disagree with the rule that says no over the counter drugs allowed.
When I was in school it was simple. If you had a prescription you bring it with your pills drop it off at the office in the morning and come to the office when it's time to take your pills. As for the need for Advil and the like if you had a head ache you go to the office they call mom or dad for permission and you get your pain pills that's it.
IMO no school should conduct a bodily search based on word of mouth from a student. In this case they should have called a parent and discussed the matter first because the parent may have given the pills to their child. If that wasn't the case then discuss with the parent permission to search. That way that point of responsibility is not on the school because if the child had a medical emergency as a result of taking those pills drug interaction whatever then they'd get slapped from the other side (why didn't you do anything if you thought she had pills).
This is all about common sense that's all. School administrations need to stop being so paranoid calm down and think.

I agree the search was ridiculous but I do disagree with the rule that says no over the counter drugs allowed. When I was in school it was simple. If you had a prescription you bring it with your pills drop it off at the office in the morning and come to the office when it's time to take your pills. As for the need for Advil and the like if you had a head ache you go to the office they call mom or dad for permission and you get your pain pills that's it. IMO no school should conduct a bodily search based on word of mouth from a student. In this case they should have called a parent and discussed the matter first because the parent may have given the pills to their child. If that wasn't the case then discuss with the parent permission to search. That way that point of responsibility is not on the school because if the child had a medical emergency as a result of taking those pills drug interaction whatever then they'd get slapped from the other side (why didn't you do anything if you thought she had pills). This is all about common sense that's all. School administrations need to stop being so paranoid calm down and think.

I was actually quite surprised with who was in the majority for this case. Scalia usually is pro state/officer action when it comes to search and seizures. I also have mixed feelings on the holding. They basically ruled in the Savana's favor, but then gave her limited to no remedy to make her whole again. It is quite confusing to me because I see a blatant tort action, in which the school should be liable.

I have mixed feelings about this. While I agree with the court's findings that the search was unconstitutional, I'm reluctant to agree that she should be able to sue school officials for the search. I agree -- it was hard for the officials to know they broke the law -- it was a gray area. That's part of the reason why it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. There was NO precedent for this.
Now, with this ruling, there is precedent (for future outrageous searches). JMHO.

I have mixed feelings about this. While I agree with the court's findings that the search was unconstitutional, I'm reluctant to agree that she should be able to sue school officials for the search. I agree -- it was hard for the officials to know they broke the law -- it was a gray area. That's part of the reason why it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. There was NO precedent for this.Now, with this ruling, there is precedent (for future outrageous searches). JMHO.

I don't understand why she can't sue. That search was ridiculous and completely unwarranted. Worse, it's Ibuprofen for God's sakes!

5 years

Who ever authorized the search should be fired. I bet someone high up in the Education department persuaded that ruling. The "Teachers Union" is very powerful; very powerful. They are crooked. She should be able to sue. THEY VIOLATED HER RIGHTS!!

5 years

She needs to be able to sue or else what's the point of the judge's ruling?